The Truth About XP Deus, page 13

13. Comparative Field-Testing of V4.1 and V3.2 with Legacy 9-inch LF Search Coils

(...CONTINUES from Previous Page)

My initial custom program for field-testing the version 4.X was based on the factory preset program #9 ("HOT"). Since it did not work well with the V4.0, I decided not to use the "HOT" preset as a basis of my custom program for the V4.1. Instead I used the "DEUS FAST" factory preset which incorporates filters fully compatible with the V4.X platform.

Initial program settings of this preset did not matter as I had to change them anyway. In this case, any other factory preset program, except a "Gold Field", with the same filters could be used.

My prime focus was on a new feature - Ground Sensitivity (page 35 of the V4.1-V5.X Manual), that was added to the V4.1. I assumed that this feature could be the main thing of the update as the V4.1 was developed mainly to address problems with fine-tuning the Ground function while using the LF coils.

Besides, the Ground Sensitivity at low settings can also unburden the HF coil's microprocessor of a zillion of operations that may be unnecessary under certain detecting conditions. This feature was finally refined in the subsequent version 5.0 to allow for better performance of the X35 LF coils.

The Ground Sensitivity would seem a tricky feature to me as it must be fine-tuned to the current mineral content in soil not to compromise the detector's efficiency in Target ID and Target Recognition when utilizing the black LF coils. I hoped that this feature would make a real difference in performance of the Deus V4.1 compared to that of the Deus V4.0.

All I had to do was to figure out via experimentation what setting of the Ground Sensitivity would be the best for my detecting conditions. All other settings and tonal patterns of the 5-Tone mode in my new custom program would be the same as in my search program for the v4.0.

The V4.1 testing was conducted at the same location as before and under the same detecting conditions except for presence of stubble of a medium height. With use of the 9" coils, this would not be a big problem. Also, many freshly covered holes on the ground surface indicated that some detectorists had already visited the spot since the field was harvested. But my partner and I encountered a bigger problem.

As soon as we began detecting, my partner’s XP WS4 headphones stopped working. Three seasons ago, I had to repair this headset after a wire inside the foldable headband finally broke (the right-side phone became silent) due to having been bent and unbent countless times. Last season, I also repaired my WS4 headset as it got the same problem. I hope that the XP engineers finally fix this flaw which has not been addressed since 2009!

I made both of our WS4 headsets unfoldable, and my partner and I had not folded them ever since. On that day of testing, my partner's WS4 headphones could be turned on and off but became unresponsive to pressing a central button and did not produce any audio. This problem did not seem an easy-repairable one to me. And the wired headphones were accidentally left at home.

The only option was to use a remote controller with its speaker turned on. But there is NO Volume control for the speaker! It is hard to believe that, while designing the remote, the XP engineers did not consider a situation like this when one needs to make the speaker sound louder to overcome intense ambient noise, and the opposite case when the user needs to turn the volume down not to either attract attention to oneself or disturb other detectorists.

So, hearing short, coin-indicating signals was problematic or even impossible for my partner as they were “outvoiced” not only by strong winds blowing continuously all day long, but also by crunchy sounds of stubble upon contact with the search coil.

Because of this mishap, we had to use our initial test strategy to compare performances of the Deuses V3.2 and V4.1: I would go first to look for coin signals, and if I receive one, my partner would examine it with different settings of the Deus V3.2. This time, we decided not to conduct our testing at the iron-laden spots where the detection-depth range did not matter, and the Target Separation ability of the Deus V4.X was not in question.

The main question was whether or not the version 4.1 could provide the same detection-depth range as that of the V3.2 at the spots with scarce iron rubbish. First thing I had to do was to fine-tune the Ground Sensitivity through the Mineral Effect test (it will be described in details in one of my upcoming articles).

This test would also be a good test to show the difference, if there was any, in detection depth of the Deuses V3.2 and V4.1. Luckily I brought a bag with sample-coins (coins attached to plastic slats) with me, which I normally use in the Mineral Effect test.

To determine the detection-depth ranges of the V3.2 and V4.1 for coins in focus through the Mineral Effect test, I located two target-free ground spots, one for each Deus. Both spots had the same level of ground mineralization, and both test-setups contained identical sample-coins. Both Deuses were perfectly ground balanced over their designated spots.

While ground balancing the Deus V4.1, I was pleasantly surprised how stable and quiet my Deus was! Finally! I was glad that the Ground Sensitivity turned out to be a key feature for resolving issues related to the Deus' stability and proper functionality of G.B.

This feature, if adjusted correctly, may also help the LF-coil user make the low conductive, non-ferrous targets positioned at medium depths sound better (all details will be given in one of my upcoming articles).

To fine-tune the Deus V4.1's Ground Sensitivity for the actual level of mineralization, I placed the sample-coin at a medium depth and varied the Ground Sensitivity levels until I got the clearest audio response to the coin.

Then I gradually increased the coin-placement depth until the Deus' response began breaking up. This was an indication of the sample-coin turning into a so-called "threshold target", i.e. it was at the fringe of the detection-depth range.

All program settings responsible for the detection-depth range were the same as those in V3.2. After I ran the Mineral Effect test with the Deus V3.2 and saw its detection-depth range for the sample-coin, I noticed a difference. The Deus V3.2's detection depth was approximately 1.4" (3.5 cm) larger than that of the Deus V4.1.

Although, among similar tests, conditions of the Mineral Effect test are considered the closest to the real detecting conditions, we still had to confirm our comparative test results by actual field-testing of two Deuses if it was possible.

And it was! Being fine-tuned this time, my Deus V4.1 detected three coins! Two of them were partially masked by iron bits and positioned at the mid-depths. Since these two coins were well within the detection-depth ranges of both Deus detectors, they could not be used for comparative testing. But the third coin was somewhat the threshold target as the Deus V4.1 gave a broken audio response to it.

But the Deus V3.2 responded to this coin with a clear, solid signal indicating a depth-margin! In this case, the easiest way to determine the depth margin - the difference in the detection depth, was to reduce a level of Reactivity by one unit at a time. After reducing Reactivity by just one unit, I received the same broken response as that with the Deus V4.1.

Normally for the v3.2, the difference in detection depth between two levels of Reactivity ranges from 1 inch to 2.5 inches depending on the soil mineralization, target size and operating frequency used. In our case, the depth-margin of not less than 1 inch (2.54 cm) had been confirmed. In other words, if the legacy black LF coil is used with the V4.1 or V5.X being attuned to the HF coils, a possible loss of the detection depth should be expected.

To avoid the depth loss with the 4-18 kHz operating frequencies, XP released the more powerful and stable X35 LF coils (detectors) with the V5.0 in the summer of 2018. And the X35 LF coils have been supplied as standard with the XP Deus detectors since then.

According to some former users of the legacy coils, which have recently bought and tested the X35 LF coils, these coils not only compensate the above-mentioned depth loss, but also have shown an increase of two inches in the detection-depth range. But these users also stated that "it is a lot of extra money for the 2-inch gain."

Some users have reported that they had not observed any differences. As I do not have an opportunity to field-test the X35 LF coils, I can not confirm or refute any of that info, and can only convey to you what the users have reported.

Would the users of the Deus V4.1 with the legacy LF coils be at a disadvantage if they do not buy the X35 LF coils? It depends on the prevailing metal detecting conditions at the hunt sites visited by the user.

The legacy-coil users would certainly not miss out on anything if they hunt in areas where the detection-depth range does not matter, or in the plowed fields where the soil is turned over annually and, therefore, those coins that have been 2 inches below the legacy LF coil's detection-depth range will be closer to the ground surface after next plowing.

Because I could not resist to see how the Deus V4.1 would perform with the 9" HF coil at 27 kHz, I decided to run the Mineral Effect test with it as well. As I had expected, changing the Ground Sensitivity settings did not make any difference in terms of the GB stability or quality of audio responses to my "threshold" sample-coin. The Deus V4.1 with the gold-prospecting HF coil was quite stable.

For the first time, my partner did not find a single coin with her Deus V3.2 due to the lack of sufficient audio indication of detected targets. This outcome of unfortunate circumstances proved that using the headphones at the so-called "searched-out" sites is a must.

Please note that, because I field-tested the V4.0-V4.1 at my local test grounds which in no way can represent the majority of metal detecting sites, info in this chapter can be considered very subjective. But I believe that I should share my test results with those wanting to learn about the Deus as much as possible.

(CONTINUES on Next Page...)